Canadian-born Cruz is the next fresh face of politics

Updated 11:19 am, Thursday, August 9, 2012

We have a new messiah, it seems.

Another polished orator with a made-for-TV smile and a Harvard law degree. A success story born of humble beginnings and of an exotic demographic (at least in terms of national politics). A young, sudden star who, barely a week after winning a Republican primary runoff for U.S. Senate (his first election!), is being mentioned as a presidential contender in 2016.

Yes, tea party darling Ted Cruz's political prospects are exciting topics for pundits and columnists these days. Some have pondered whether he's the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt or the conservative incarnation of Barack Obama.

One thing's for sure: The birthers needn't work themselves into a fresh lather over this non-Anglo. No birth certificate shenanigans here. Cruz's American credentials are quite clear: He was born in Canada.

His Cuban-born father, who fled to the United States after fighting under Fidel Castro, and his Irish-American mother, born in Delaware, met in Texas but sought their fortunes in Canada during the 1960s oil boom. Ted, born Rafael Edward Cruz, was born in Calgary in 1970.

One columnist, the Austin American-Statesman's Ken Herman, already has found a way around this hurdle, however. After researching and consulting experts, Herman's humorous, not-so-legal opinion is that being born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother is enough to nudge him past the natural-born citizen requirement for the nation's highest office.

Firing up the base

All this excitement surrounding the former solicitor general is understandable. He's due his honeymoon. He's due his speaking slot at the Republican National Convention later this month. He beat out an established Republican contender with an actual political résumé, state Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, whom Cruz bashed for compromising too much.

Cruz has been deemed the tea party Intellectual. Perhaps, Palin with a brain. He says all the right things to fire up the base: Stop the Obama Agenda! Liberty's never been more threatened than it is now! We're descending into Greece! And my personal favorite, which the Texas Tribune quoted him saying about Obama's health care law: "I'll throw my body in front of a train to stop anything short of its complete and total repeal."

And it's hard to not be excited about a guy who's so excited about himself: "We are witnessing a great awakening," the AP quoted him saying of his victory.

Are we? His prospects for U.S. Senate are good. Texas hasn't elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994. And his Democratic rival, former East Texas state Rep. Paul Sadler, for all his reaching-across-the-aisle and education reform experience in the Texas House, has a voice more suited for bedtime stories than fiery, vote-getting debate performance.

Reality-challenged

Many see in Cruz's victory another sign of the tea party's rise. I tend to agree with those who say it's less about ideology and more about the man, the "fresh face" that several voters cited during my interviews at the polls.

But the man's ideology deserves some attention, too. Now, I don't have a bachelor's from Princeton. And I've never mnemonically memorized the Constitution. But some of Cruz's positions are out there. Some would say wacky. I'd say reality-challenged.

In a recent visit to "Fox News Sunday," even host Chris Wallace had to remark, after ticking off a list of Cruz's positions, "You are pretty conservative."

"Without a doubt," Cruz responded. "I think the American people are pretty conservative. I'm certain the people of Texas are pretty conservative."

Most, I hope, don't subscribe to baseless conspiracy theories like the one involving "Agenda 21." The voluntary, nonbinding 1992 U.N. resolution, which the Bush administration was one of the first to adopt, was intended to encourage nations to conserve resources and open space, to contain urban sprawl. Cruz believes it's "a globalist plan that tries to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the liberties we all cherish as Americans."

For a Harvard Law magna cum laude, Cruz doesn't always do his homework. Like during the Dallas TV debate against Dewhurst when he remarked that "it is much cheaper to provide emergency care than it is to expand Medicaid and to expand the rolls."

Are we this desperate for a fresh face? What are the limits to this gnatish fascination with the new, the now, the nonsensical, unsustainable lust for something pure? In Washington, political purity seems to have the shelf-life of a ripe banana.